SUMMARY

SUMMARY

IDENTIFICATION

SCIENTIFIC NAME(s)

Hoplostethus atlanticus

SPECIES NAME(s)

Orange roughy

Several studies (e.g. Oke et al. 1997; Varela et al. 2012) have been conducted using distinct techniques (microsatellites, allozyme or mtDNA analysis, diet and behaviour, etc.) in different geographic scales (New Zealand, Australia, Namibia, and Chile, North Atlantic). In samples collected from Hebrides (NW Ireland) to Sedlo bank (near the Azores archipelago), a panmitic population was found in the NE Atlantic and significant differences with the Namibian population (White et al. 2009). Genetic studies also found differences among New Zealand and Australian stocks (Branch 2001). But the worldwide stock structure of orange roughy is still currently unknown and a lack of significant differentiation among far geographic samples is revealed (Varela et al. 2012). Main fisheries are conducted in New Zealand, Australia, NE Atlantic and Namibia, where different regional units are considered for assessment and management purposes:

New Zealand: presumable biological stock structure is based on the spawning grounds identified but the nine assessment/management units here considered according to main fisheries operating in the region, not always coincide with the boundaries of the biological stocks (more details in MPI, 2014a).

Within the management unit Northern North Island (ORH 1) there are several biological stocks with unclear boundaries: Mercury-Colville is an assessment unit; there are other stocks that are not assessed

Within the management unit Chatham Rise and Puysegur (ORH 3B) there are at least two biological stocks with correspondent assessment units: NW Chatham Rise, East and South Rise, Puysegur and the remainder of the sub-Antarctic area

Within the management unit Challenger Plateau (ORH 7A) there is a biological stock which includes also the Westpac Bank outside the New Zealand EEZ, managed by the South Pacific RFMO.

ANALYSIS

A Harvest Standard Strategy (harvest control rule) is in place for all orange roughy stocks.

Technical measures are established to minimize and monitor the interaction of the fishery with sharks, seabirds and marine mammals.

Weaknesses

The management approach is based on ‘CPUE monitoring and other information derived from characterisation’ and monitoring on observer sampling.

Current abundance estimates are not available preventing a new stock assessment from being performed.

Catch limits set since 1999/2000 were considered as sustainable and the stock has been rebuilding but the last stock assessment was conducted in 2003 and reference points cannot be determined because the current level of virgin biomass is not known. The theoretical biomass target of 30% B0 may not be sufficiently conservative considering orange roughy’s low productivity.

No new management actions are proposed for the current fishing year.

The fishery interacts with protected species such as seabirds and corals.

Bycatch proportions are unknown.

FISHSOURCE SCORES

Management Quality:

Management Strategy:

≥ 6

Managers Compliance:

10

Fishers Compliance:

10

Stock Health:

Current Health:

NOT YET SCORED

Future Health:

NOT YET SCORED

RECOMMENDATIONS

CATCHERS & REGULATORS

Implement a comprehensive data collection program, including fishery-dependent and fishery-independent methods, to reduce uncertainty in and increase the quantity of data available for stock assessments.

Expand research on and monitoring of impacts on the seabed ecosystem in both fished and unfished (including closed) areas, and increase Benthic Protected Area coverage in orange roughy habitat.

Revise the Harvest Control Rule, as has been done in other New Zealand orange roughy fisheries, to better reflect this species’ low productivity.

RETAILERS & SUPPLY CHAIN

Encourage your suppliers to continue the consultation process, begun with U.S. conservation organizations in October 2013, to identify sustainability concerns and establish a path to resolve these concerns.

Contact the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries and encourage them to be highly precautionary in their management of this sensitive fishery, and request that they improve data collection and reduce uncertainty surrounding both the target species and the ecosystem impacts of harvest.

FIPS

No related FIPs

CERTIFICATIONS

No related MSC fisheries

Fisheries

Within FishSource, the term "fishery" is used to indicate each unique combination of a flag country with a fishing gear, operating within a particular management unit, upon a resource. That resource may have a known biological stock structure and/or may be assessed at another level for practical or jurisdictional reasons. A fishery is the finest scale of resolution captured in FishSource profiles, as it is generally the scale at which sustainability can most fairly and practically be evaluated.

Analysis

OVERVIEW

A Harvest Standard Strategy (harvest control rule) is in place for all orange roughy stocks.

Technical measures are established to minimize and monitor the interaction of the fishery with sharks, seabirds and marine mammals.

Weaknesses

The management approach is based on ‘CPUE monitoring and other information derived from characterisation’ and monitoring on observer sampling.

Current abundance estimates are not available preventing a new stock assessment from being performed.

Catch limits set since 1999/2000 were considered as sustainable and the stock has been rebuilding but the last stock assessment was conducted in 2003 and reference points cannot be determined because the current level of virgin biomass is not known. The theoretical biomass target of 30% B0 may not be sufficiently conservative considering orange roughy’s low productivity.

No new management actions are proposed for the current fishing year.

The fishery interacts with protected species such as seabirds and corals.

Bycatch proportions are unknown.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Last updated on 17 October 2016

Improvement Recommendations to Catchers & Regulators

Implement a comprehensive data collection program, including fishery-dependent and fishery-independent methods, to reduce uncertainty in and increase the quantity of data available for stock assessments.

Expand research on and monitoring of impacts on the seabed ecosystem in both fished and unfished (including closed) areas, and increase Benthic Protected Area coverage in orange roughy habitat.

Revise the Harvest Control Rule, as has been done in other New Zealand orange roughy fisheries, to better reflect this species’ low productivity.

Recommendations to Retailers & Supply Chain

Encourage your suppliers to continue the consultation process, begun with U.S. conservation organizations in October 2013, to identify sustainability concerns and establish a path to resolve these concerns.

Contact the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries and encourage them to be highly precautionary in their management of this sensitive fishery, and request that they improve data collection and reduce uncertainty surrounding both the target species and the ecosystem impacts of harvest.

1.STOCK STATUS

STOCK ASSESSMENT

Inconsistencies have been detected the way that this stocks are assessed, with underestimated stock size based on Catch per Unit Effort (CPUE) biomass indices. Last stock assessment was performed in 2003 using the Stock Assessment program CASAL to estimate virgin biomass (B0) and current biomass and based on Bayesian estimation with several assumptions defined in MPI (2012). The base case model included CPUE indices and the alternative case comprised egg survey and CPUE indices (MPI, 2014a).

The 2006 update of the assessment was considered as unreliable and CPUE indices used considered as inadequate. As no new data on abundance is available, no new stock assessment could be performed (MPI, 2014a).

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE

Stock assessments are conducted by independent researchers contracted by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) and the results are peer reviewed by the Deepwater Fisheries Assessment Working Group (DFAWG) which is composed by scientists of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), the Ministry and the industry. The DFAWG, under MPI, evaluates the state of the fisheries and stocks and analyze management scenarios, not being responsible by management recommendations or decisions which are taken by the MPI. A final decision is discussed in a multi-stakeholder meeting. Catch limits at 200 tons, in place since 1999/2000, are considered to be sustainable and the stock to be rebuilding (MPI, 2014a,b).

Reference Points

A biomass target reference point is adopted, BMSY, at 30% of B0. However BMSY for orange roughy stocks was reassessed in 2014 at 26% of B0 (Cordue, 2014, DWG, 2014). Other biological reference points are set:
- Soft limit is a “biomass level below which a stock is deemed to be “overfished” or depleted and needs to be actively rebuilt”, is 20% of B0 and considered as the limit reference point (Blim);
- Hard limit is a “biomass level below which a stock is deemed to be “collapsed” where fishery closures should be considered in order to rebuild a stock at the fastest possible rate”, is 10% of B0 (MPI, 2012).

But the level of virgin biomass (B0) is not currently known so absolute levels of reference points, although theoretically set, cannot be determined. In addition, a MSC pre-assessment cautioned against the 30-40% of B0 target in place for other orange roughy stocks, given the low productivity of the species (Punt et al., 2013).

CURRENT STATUS

Current abundance or fishing mortality estimates are not available. North East Cape stock represented 26% of catches (of QMA 2A) in 2012/2013 with 190 tons (MPI, 2014a).

Trends

Catches were higher during 1994/1995 and 1999/2000 (above 1.500 tons; more than 50% of catches for the whole ORH 2A), decreased greatly in result of TAC reduction and maintained at around 170 – 271 tons since 2001/2002. Last estimate, from 2003, situated the stock below the target, at 24% of B0, around 5,100 tons. Fishing mortality (F) was decreasing in result of catch limits reduction since 1999/2000, and considered to be stable (MoF, 2011).

2.MANAGEMENT QUALITY

MANAGEMENT

The New Zealand’s Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) manages the fishery under a Quota Management System (QMS) since 1986 in order to maintain stock biomass levels that support the Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) (MFA, 2011; MPI, 2014a,b). Scientists and managers work in close relationship in the process of defining catch limits. The options recommended by the Minister/Ministry in the initial and final position papers, and in the letter for stakeholders are in line with the stock assessment developed and with the Harvest Standard Strategy (MoF, 2008).

A HSS (Harvest Control Rule) is in place for all orange roughy stocks. For this stock a target biomass is at 30% of virgin biomass (B0), around which the stock should fluctuate with ‘high probability’. The management approach is based on ‘CPUE monitoring and other information derived from characterisation’ and on observer sampling (MPI, 2013b; MPI, 2014a,b).

At the time of the last assessment, catch limits were considered as sustainable and the stock rebuilding (MPI, 2014b,d). No new management measures are proposed for the 2014/2015 fishing year and the catch limit is maintained at 200 tons; the overall TAC for ORH 2A is set at 512 tons with 24 tons for ‘other sources of fishing-related mortality’ (MPI, 2014c).

Recovery Plans

Not applicable.

COMPLIANCE

The set TAC was generally overpassed mainly due to lost fish and discards at about 50% in the beginning of the 1980s and decreased to 5% since 1994/95. In the last years catches have been within the catch limit set. Illegal catches are not known to occur (MPI, 2014a).

Several finfish bycatch species share the same habitat of orange roughy and the most commonly caught are black cardinal fish Epigonus telescopus and alfonsino Beryx decadactylus, which are managed under the QMS; no proportions in relation to total catches are available. Deepwater sharks, deepsea skates and corals are the ‘low productivity’ species caught (MPI, 2014a).

HABITAT

Trawling for orange roughy, like trawling for other species, is likely to have effects on benthic community structure and function and there may be consequences for benthic productivity (MPI, 2014a). The vulnerability (slow rate regeneration) of the seabed ecosystems and protected coral species is being studied in result of poor current knowledge (Ramm, 2012). According to Black et al. (2013), there have been no studies investigating whether current trawling frequencies have had adverse effects on the structure and function of benthic communities, or on the productivity of the associated fisheries.

However, according to Baird et al., (2013) the orange roughy fishery was found to be one of the fisheries posing the greatest risk to coral habitats in New Zealand. The annual footprint of the fishery (area of seafloor contacted by trawling operations) has been decreasing and in 2009/2010 was a third of the maximum peak of 1998/1999, however some overlap is still recognized, which poses the risk of biogenic impact (Black et al, 2013).

Habitats of particular significance for fisheries management (HPSFM) is a policy definition in development regarding the impact of the fishing gears and sensitive coral species (MPI, 2014a).

Marine Reserves

Since 2007, 30% (1,200 Km2) of the Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ) has been closed to bottom trawling (and dredging) to protect the seafloor, through the implementation of 17 Benthic Protection Areas (BPA) (MPI, 2014a). However, 82% of the protected areas were implemented in waters too deep to fish, while only 3%–15% of marine habitats less than 1500 m deep were protected (Rieser et al. 2013). With respect to the orange roughy species range, only 16% of habitat has been estimated to fall under the protection of BPAs (MPI, 2010). Two trawl closed areas are within the QMA 2A and three of the 17 Benthic Protection Areas (BPA) are in the QMAs 2A and 2B (MoF, 2011).

A network of Marine Protected Areas (MPA) is established and includes 38 marine reserves (territorial waters) and 6 marine mammal sanctuaries besides other levels of protection (e.g. marine parks, closures, protection zones). The MPA policy was published in 2006 and the first phase concerned the territorial sea where impacts were more important and considering that BPAs were already providing protection to seabed ecosystems within the EEZ. Implementation of offshore MPAs was postponed to 2013 until when all protected areas and levels, readjustments and proposals were being analyzed (MPI, 2009).

According to Leathwick et al. (2008), the current system of marine protected areas is not very representative and does not provides protection for a large number of fish species. The current BPAs were to be reviewed after 2013 and if existing BPAs were found not to be representative then further closures were to be considered (MPI, 2010).

FishSource Scores

MANAGEMENT QUALITY

As calculated for 2014 data.

The score is ≥ 6.

A Harvest Standard Strategy (harvest control rule) is in place defining the target biomass at 30% of virgin biomass. The fishery is regulated by catch limits, reference points are set but absolute levels are not possible to determine and the harvest control rule cannot be applied. There are no new management actions proposed for the current fishing year. Catch limits in place since 1999/2000 at 0.200 tons are considered as sustainable and the stock has been rebuilding (MPI, 2014a,b,c).

To see data for management quality, please view this site on a desktop.

No data available for stock status

No data available for stock status

DATA NOTES

The fishing season lasts 12 months until the end of September; accordingly, the 2015 data refers to the October 2014 – September 2015 season. The current (early September 2014) level of catches was not included because the 2013/2014 fishing year (available in the MPI website) was still open at the time of this update. Score #3 relies on the 2012/2013 fishing year.

As a single government agency (Ministry for Primary Industries) is responsible for both scientific advice and management of the stock, we are assuming that set TACC = advised TACC to compute score #2. The TAC is set by the Minister for the stock as a whole and catch limits for each sub-stock are agreed with the industry (MPI, 2014a,b,c). Scientists and managers work in close relationship in the process of defining catch limits. The options recommended by the Minister/Ministry in the initial and final position papers, and in the letter for stakeholders are in line with the stock assessment developed and with the Harvest Standard Strategy (MoF, 2008).

TACC data include quota management areas ORH2A (Ritchie and East Cape), ORH2B (Wairarapa) and ORH3A (Kaikoura) until 1994/95 and since then is only for 2A North which is separately managed; from 1997 to 2000, 2A North was split into the area round the East Cape Hills and the remaining area, which is called the exploratory area. Catches are only for 2A North (MPI, 2014a).

Scores #4 and #5 cannot be determined quantitative or qualitatively. No stock assessment is performed since 2003. The current stock status is unknown and reference points cannot be determined; fishing mortality time-series is not available, only abundance levels from 1993/1994 to 2002/2003 which are considered out of date to compute scores. Based on the available information, score #1 was determined qualitatively (please mouse-over for further details).

Download Source Data

Registered users can download the original data file for calculating the scores after logging in. If you wish, you can Register now.

Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), 2014b. Review of Sustainability Measures and Other Management Controls for Selected Deepwater Fishstocks, Final Advice and Recommendations for the TAC, TACC, and Allowances and Deemed Value Rates for six fishstocks, 80pp. http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-resources/publications